Post & Creat Profiles On Site Unethical SEO Practice? Link Spamming In The Eyes of Offline Client?

[MattSanti]

So over the past couple of days I've been having a mental debate with myself. This is partially due to another post that received a lot of attention on Monday.

Anyway, I know a lot of SEOs can and do aggressive link building techniques in order to get to that coveted number one spot. I know several reputable Warriors offer link packages - creating profiles on sites and dropping a link on them.

Or creating content on free blogs and borrowing their link juice such as creating link wheels. This is NOT an attack on any of their services, on them nor am I calling them unethical spammers. I have used them personally, so this is not the issue.

I am just wondering though, in terms of an offline client who wouldn't necessarily understand the value behind links or your work/process, would they or could they just see you as some complete amateur who doesn't know what they are doing or some lazy spammer?

How would you explain to a client, (here's the other question) that content syndication all over the internet is vital to promoting a website and that it is not spamming? And content being in the form of links, blog comments, articles, video, podcasts, - the whole gamut.

As long obviously as the content is actually valuable and not just some rehashed mish-mash that not even a second grader could make sense of?

What are your thoughts? This question, if asked at all, from the eyes of an offline client - what do you look like for what could be questionable SEO practices because they don't understand the process?

I know this a lot of what-ifs. Just thoughts I had to put to paper --errgh screen in this case --. Okay I'm done.

[richdirtygirl]

Hi Matt,

you have 2 choices, as I see it:

1 - sell leads to your client and don't tell him/her how you found them.

2 - educate them. A fast and easy way is to find a keyword related to their niche where they are already doing syndication. Show them the pattern and then make a single question:

you want this to be you or your competition?

and let them choose...

Laura

[JohnMcCabe]

Matt, I'd explain to the client (without going into eye-glazing detail) that you have two levels of service.

You can stick to safe methods, like quality articles, valuable blog comments, etc.

Or you can be more aggressive (like building link wheels or dropping profiles purely for the link juice), with the client's realization that being aggressive could carry consequences.

You could compare it to an accountant or investment adviser - the more aggressive tactics have the potential for higher rewards, but they also carry higher risks.

Then let the client decide...

[Dexx]

If you do it right, you can be aggressive, generate massive SEO links, and not suffer consequences.

Think of it like working out...do it too hard and improperly...you'll find out the hard way....yet push yourself to the maximum and keep proper form...you'll get great results.

[Andyhenry]

What John said.

To some clients such things will seem amateurish and desperate.

To others - they'll think it's cool.

Since they're paying you - you work within the boundaries that they're comfortable with.

Andy

[digidoodles]

Most offline clients have no clue about any of that. All they care about is an increase of sales.

Honestly, I don't think I've met one offline person that knows one iota about SEO practices.

[Tom Goodwin]

Why not simply have 10 or so "clean" legit articles/web 2.0 on authority domains, and then bomb the hell out of those with your backlinks?

Keep your main site pristine if you will, but still getting plenty of link juice.

Originally Posted by MattSanti

So over the past couple of days I've been having a mental debate with myself. This is partially due to another post that received a lot of attention on Monday.

Anyway, I know a lot of SEOs can and do aggressive link building techniques in order to get to that coveted number one spot. I know several reputable Warriors offer link packages - creating profiles on sites and dropping a link on them.

Or creating content on free blogs and borrowing their link juice such as creating link wheels. This is NOT an attack on any of their services, on them nor am I calling them unethical spammers. I have used them personally, so this is not the issue.

I am just wondering though, in terms of an offline client who wouldn't necessarily understand the value behind links or your work/process, would they or could they just see you as some complete amateur who doesn't know what they are doing or some lazy spammer?

How would you explain to a client, (here's the other question) that content syndication all over the internet is vital to promoting a website and that it is not spamming? And content being in the form of links, blog comments, articles, video, podcasts, - the whole gamut.

As long obviously as the content is actually valuable and not just some rehashed mish-mash that not even a second grader could make sense of?

What are your thoughts? This question, if asked at all, from the eyes of an offline client - what do you look like for what could be questionable SEO practices because they don't understand the process?

I know this a lot of what-ifs. Just thoughts I had to put to paper --errgh screen in this case --. Okay I'm done.

[MikeFriedman]

Most of the offline clients have no clue how you are doing what you are doing, and most don't care to understand it. That's why they were willing to hire someone in the first place.

Plus, other than in general terms, I don't tell our clients about what we are doing to get their SEO results. I don't want them taking our carefully laid out plan to their brother's, cousin's, sister's, friend's uncle, who has dabbled around on the internet and thinks he can do the same thing for them for cheaper.

[freudianslip27]

I second what Tom mentioned, about creating a "buffer".

I don't do too much in the way of aggressive link building to a main client's site. Creating articles or pages on high profile sites and THEN being more aggressive with that offers a layer of security while still getting the word out on the net.

I also think that utilizing a place like ezinearticles is neat, especially given that it says write on each article how many times it has been viewed.

Matt